Good Article

[Nigel]

This article is pretty interesting. Who would have thought that perhaps there is a video analogy to Super8 in there too.

http://filmmakermagazine.com/88000-the- ... y-control/

Good Luck

[carllooper]

I have to partly disagree with the writer of that article.

"What matters is what you capture, not necessarily how you captured it. I wouldn’t even have the chance to consider making a “next film” if I had gotten hung up on chasing the latest gizmo."

First of all, there is no equation between "chasing the latest gizmo" and otherwise being involved in how something is 'captured' (or created). The author conflates these two perspectives as if they were symptoms of each other. But they are not. Those filmmakers who get involved in how something is made are not necessarily running out and chasing the latest gizmo. They could very well be inventing their own gizmos instead. And those who do chase the latest gizmos need not have any interest or knowledge whatsoever in how such gizmos work. Often they don't really give a shit at all. Just like the author. But equally they might, not as some magic bullet as the author would otherwise assume, but as an alternative to building the technology oneself. One finances someone better positioned and skilled to do it. There is always a bigger picture to be found.

But otherwise the article can be regarded as reasonable if not good advice for a particular type of film making such as the documentary form suggested in the article. One doesn't need to get too wrapped up in the how if one doesn't want to do that. After all, the technology is often invented to precisely black box a lot of that responsibility. To facilitate the type of film making suggested. And I'm a great advocate for just such a way of working. However I'd argue that if one is cornered into using some technology one otherwise wouldn't want to use, that one either doesn't use it, or one comes to terms with the particular virtues and qualities of that particular technology and exploit it rather than just "put up" with it. Ultimately no technology is better or worse than any other because it's what you do with it that matters, be it on a physical level, a technical level, an artistic level, or across all levels.

However in the type of film making in which I work, how you create something and what you create, are very much interlocked. The system itself is treated as no less plastic as whatever "pivotal, emotionally wrenching moments" you otherwise employ to control the system.

And if it wasn't such work in the how throughout history, the filmmaker in question wouldn't even have the concept of a camera in the first place, let alone a Panasonic DVX-100.

While one might not personally pursue the details of the technology one is otherwise using, equally one shouldn't really diss those who do. There is a partnership going on, albeit a strange and distanced one.

C

[grainy]

I like the premise that filmmakers should detach from new-gear-fever, which is stoked by the internet selling machine and impossible to avoid, but unless the dvx100 here overlaps with a different dvx100, that camera actually a high-end 3-chip prosumer camera that was a relative Cadillac of its time and is now simply outdated, as everything digital is about twice yearly. We're not talking about a $350 off the shelf at Walmart camcorder here. In its time it would've been equivalent to a low-end 16mm sync camera in terms of its place in the industry (not its quality).
G

[carllooper]

Oh man - has this been posted before - it looks great:

Beach Town:
https://vimeo.com/102653830

C

[grainy]

Hey, thanks Carl! (Not to hijack the thread, but...) I didn't end up shooting this one on Super 8 but this forum has been a valuable resource for using and understanding film, that's for sure! "Beach Town" was shot on Super 16 (Kodak 250D and 500T) with my own Bolex H16 reflex and an Aaton XTR that I got via a camera grant from Northwest Film Forum here in Seattle. Finished editing late in November and will start hearing from festivals (one way or another!) next month.
G

[MovieStuff]

Carl, first you write:

I have to partly disagree with the writer of that article.

"What matters is what you capture, not necessarily how you captured it. I wouldn’t even have the chance to consider making a “next film” if I had gotten hung up on chasing the latest gizmo."

First of all, there is no equation between "chasing the latest gizmo" and otherwise being involved in how something is 'captured' (or created). The author conflates these two perspectives as if they were symptoms of each other. But they are not. Those filmmakers who get involved in how something is made are not necessarily running out and chasing the latest gizmo. They could very well be inventing their own gizmos instead. And those who do chase the latest gizmos need not have any interest or knowledge whatsoever in how such gizmos work. Often they don't really give a shit at all. Just like the author. But equally they might, not as some magic bullet as the author would otherwise assume, but as an alternative to building the technology oneself. One finances someone better positioned and skilled to do it. There is always a bigger picture to be found.

But then you write:

But otherwise the article can be regarded as reasonable if not good advice for a particular type of film making such as the documentary form suggested in the article. One doesn't need to get too wrapped up in the how if one doesn't want to do that. After all, the technology is often invented to precisely black box a lot of that responsibility. To facilitate the type of film making suggested. And I'm a great advocate for just such a way of working. However I'd argue that if one is cornered into using some technology one otherwise wouldn't want to use, that one either doesn't use it, or one comes to terms with the particular virtues and qualities of that particular technology and exploit it rather than just "put up" with it. Ultimately no technology is better or worse than any other because it's what you do with it that matters, be it on a physical level, a technical level, an artistic level, or across all levels.

So, if YOU say it's okay to not get caught up in the technology then it's okay but if the author of the article says to not get caught up in the technology then he's wrong?

Honestly, I don't see any difference in what you just wrote and what the author is essentially saying, which is that what you shoot is primary and not what you shoot it on. Obviously, he's isn't even remotely suggesting that someone shoot a feature on a 10 year old cell phone. There is a reasonable presumption of using equipment that will give you the minimum quality required to tell the story and the DVX100 he shoots with was, and is, a damned fine piece of gear and produces a splendid image. I have one and, honestly, I would choose the rock solid, 24p image off that any day of the week for shooting a feature before I would the best Super 8 camera ever made. Making a movie isn't just about your time but about the time of others that have likely volunteered to help you out. For example, risking their efforts on something as iffy and limiting as Super 8 is simply reckless, IMHO. Granted, there was a time when film and, in particular, Super 8, was really the only economic choice for film makers but that simply isn't the case and anyone that can't see that reality is being purposely obtuse or has their head in the sand. Not getting caught up in the technology is not only smart, it is the responsible thing to do when working on a low budget.

Roger

[carllooper]

So, if YOU say it's okay to not get caught up in the technology then it's okay but if the author of the article says to not get caught up in the technology then he's wrong?

Yes, I can see the difficulty, but I did say I partly disagree with the author. Which also means I partly agree with the author.

And I elaborate that.

Its certainly got nothing to do with suggesting when I say something it's right, and when the author says the same thing it's wrong.

For some filmmakers, "what you shoot" is primary. But for others, such as myself, I disagree with this. And I make my case. As to whether anyone else agrees with my take is up to them. But the argument is the important point. Not me. I don't think what I'm saying is illogical or contradictory. There may be other issues. Basically the argument (which is not just my argument since there's nothing particularly original to me in what I'm saying here) is that the how and the what are both important. And this is the point being made - that this emphasis on the "what" shouldn't be regarded as any more important than the how. The how has the benefit of being transformable into a technological solution but that doesn't make it any less important. And indeed, even where someone does put the emphasis on the what, they are still inter-operating with those who have put the emphasis the other way - on the "how", since the very camera they are using, if not the very concept of a camera in the first place, embodies an entire history on the how.

But the way in which the author writes is to treat the how as less important, or even worse. If I can be permitted an analogy, it's akin to a soccer player, who, although they might not personally pursue the position of goal keeper, and they concentrate on the position they do pursue (as I advocate they should, as does the author) they nevertheless find it necessary to bag out the goal keeper's position. And worse - they'll suggest the goal keeper is out chasing the lastest gizmos (so to speak). Its this second part I disagree with. Its one thing to concentrate on your own particular discipline. Its an altogether different thing to reinforce that by bagging out the other disciplines involved. I think the quality of an image is important. But I also think that what is meant by "quality" is completely open to interpretatation. For example, I think mini-DV has certain qualities which 35mm film doesn't. And vice versa. But the authors notion of quality is very normalised. He treats the qualities of his Panasonic as not all that great (compared to the latest gizmos) and simply chooses to ignore it. Or worse, to bag it out as unimportant. But why compare it to the latest gizmos in the first place? Why entertain this normalized notion of quality in the first place? Or worse: why conflate it with the "how". The how belongs to all gizmos, going back into prehistory - not just the latest.

What I'm arguing for is more of a team view on this sort of thing. An inter-disciplinary outlook.

With respect to what to do in a low budget environment I totally agree. Indeed I advocate using any technology at hand. Whatever works. Whatever the budgetary constraint. But to that I also advocate coming to terms with what you do use. To exploit the particular virtues and qualities rather than just ignore such (as the author is advocating). That may not be for everyone, but it's something I advocate. For example, if shooting on mini-DV there are some things you can do on that that you just can't do with a 35mm camera. So I'd be exploiting that. Or if not personally doing so then working with someone who would. To use the technology to it's best advantage, rather than just "putting up" with it. Otherwise one isn't really playing the game to it's full potential. I'd argue.

But I must admit I certainly have a particular bias for film (cinephila). And I'm often bagging out digital, but it's always in terms of specific technical criteria. I'm not against digital full stop. Indeed I work with digital a lot (in fact I earn a living from it) but I make sure to exploit digital to it's full advantage (and not just photographically). And that I use it, not as some substitute for film, (a god awful idea) but as a technology in it's own right, with it's own particular virtues and qualities. I make use of what digital can do that film can't. If I have a bias for film I also have the means to pursue and exploit that bias. And the bias is born of certain physical, technical and artistic criteria - it's not an arbitrary bias.

I don't believe any work begins with just technology. But nor do I believe any work begins with just a story. I believe it can begin anywhere and with anything. And stories? I find this is silly. Everything is a story in one way or another. To say the "story is the most important thing" is to assume one had some sort of choice in the matter. As if one could make a work without a story. But behind this "story is important" concept must be some sort of predilection for certain types of stories, for which there would be other types of stories deemed "not a story", and therefore, unimportant.

So, for example, an experimental work of some description might be treated as having no story. And by implication with the concept, therefore unimportant.

Now an alternative counter (and a traditional one for experimental filmmakers) is a come back such as "stories are unimportant" or even "films should not, or need not have a story" but I think the "everything is a story" approach is a much better come back. This allows for all sorts of work. In this approach the issue becomes whether the story is accessible, rather than whether it has one. And to that we can say it is that accessibility which is not that important.

C

[carllooper]

Being a writer (amongst other things) I write stories. Quite often stories about film. And often stories about films that may not, on the surface of things, appear to have any story. Its arguable with such films I'm just giving such a film a story. But the story I write would be impossible without the film. The film inspires the story. The film gives me a story. It may not be the filmmaker's story. It may not be the film's story, but nor is it my story. Its a story that emerges in the space between myself and the film. Even the concept of "myself" here is itself an intersection of various other stories criss-crossing the universe.

The theory I use, and it's only a theory, is that a film has a certain logic or story of it's own, which is not determined by literary notions of what such a story might be, but is determined by particularly cinematic notions of such. Now to that we can certainly add another layer more literary in origin. We can add the more familiar notion of a story, be it a formula story, or a more outlandish experimental story, or no story at all. This secondary layer is that which a lot of films possess, but they do not need to possess such, in order to be a film. It is optional. With words it's a lot harder to pursue such an option.

Now being a writer, I can't help but transform images and sounds into words. But I can often see quite plainly that my words are completely unnecessary. The film itself speaks, in it's own way, with images and sounds, whether it tells a more literary notion of a story or not. Whether I can translate such into words or not. It does not need me. It does not need my words. It does not need literary notions of a story. And indeed, it might even oppose any such thing. It can defy words, and if we give some words to such works, it is not to rob it of this defiance, but to admit defeat before it.

C

[carllooper]

Obviously, he's isn't even remotely suggesting that someone shoot a feature on a 10 year old cell phone. There is a reasonable presumption of using equipment that will give you the minimum quality required to tell the story and the DVX100 he shoots with was, and is, a damned fine piece of gear and produces a splendid image. I have one and, honestly, I would choose the rock solid, 24p image off that any day of the week for shooting a feature before I would the best Super 8 camera ever made. Making a movie isn't just about your time but about the time of others that have likely volunteered to help you out. For example, risking their efforts on something as iffy and limiting as Super 8 is simply reckless, IMHO. Granted, there was a time when film and, in particular, Super 8, was really the only economic choice for film makers but that simply isn't the case and anyone that can't see that reality is being purposely obtuse or has their head in the sand. Not getting caught up in the technology is not only smart, it is the responsible thing to do when working on a low budget.Roger

Hmmmm.

So I'd agree the author is not suggesting anyone shoot a feature film on a 10 year old cell phone.

But to this I would say that, were the author to suggest this, I myself would not have an issue with that. I have no problem with the concept of a feature film shot on a 10 year old mobile phone. I'd only have an issue if the author went on to suggest that, in making such a feature film, one should ignore the qualities of that 10 year old mobile phone. I would argue, instead, that you not ignore such, and that you make full use of it in a way that exploits the specific qualities of that particular technology.

And a feature film on Super8? Again, I have no problem with this. And I don't see why it would be iffy or reckless. Or why anyone volunteering on this would be risking any more than if they worked on a mobile phone work, or on a Panasonic work.

It depends entirely on what you are investing and expecting from such a work.

Consider this. Imagine 12 people, each responsible for a 10 minute work. When assembled together the result would be a 120 minute work. A feature film! And the risk? No different from the risk any single person would risk, making a 10 minute film.

Now certainly such a work could be episodic, and vary in so many ways, as to challenge the notion of a single work. But would that matter and why? We might find ourselves asking a lot of questions such as would there be communication between the filmmakers? Would they be working to a common theme? Would the work as a whole be pre-scripted? Would each work be assemble edited or intercut with each other? Would everyone have a say in the final cut, or just one? A lot of questions and a lot of possible answers, but none of which need create any more risk than that implicit in the starting framework.

As mentioned: it depends entirely on what you are investing and expecting from such a work.

Its really about one's disposition for this sort of thing or not. Can one get into it? Is one able to work with others of a possibly different artistic persuasion? Does one have enough capacity to keep one's totalitarian tendencies in check? Is one able to work and find inspiration outside the assumptions and rules of thumb of the Hollywood movie making machine? In my experience there are many capable of working in this way. But of course, there are just as many, if not more, completely incapable of even understanding something like this, let alone working on such a thing. Their acquired rules of thumb have become ingrained truths. In other words: a mental block rather than any real obstacle. Or to be fairer, they're artistic sensibilities may inhibit working in such a way, for quite valid reasons that may have nothing to do with Hollywood machines and ingrained truths. But either way, their particular position doesn't rule out the alternative. It only rules it out for them.

C

[Nigel]

What I think is interesting about it is the concept of using limits to enhance your expression as a filmmaker. It is part of the reason why I have always enjoyed Super8 beyond Super8's look. The idea that Super8 forces me to work in certain ways is not stifling but rather freeing in some ways.

It is funny how Greene sounds nostalgic for Mini-Dv and how he finds it an outlet for his voice.

Roger, I don't know what has happened in my time away from the board--You're right. Super8 is a lousy way to shoot a feature and it's funny how the DVX100 can be found for next to nothing and yet still has all it's inherent quality (and flaws) that it did when people were paying thousands for them.

It is and will always be about the story. From there the creator needs to find a vehicle for that story in a way that is additive and not subtractive/distractive which is often overlooked by the S8 Fanboys. I consider myself an S8 Fanboy by the way...

Good Luck

[carllooper]

What I think is interesting about it is the concept of using limits to enhance your expression as a filmmaker. It is part of the reason why I have always enjoyed Super8 beyond Super8's look. The idea that Super8 forces me to work in certain ways is not stifling but rather freeing in some ways.

I'd agree with that. Instead of being fustrated by a brick wall between oneself and any supposed greener grass beyond the obstacle, one becomes inventive instead. Working within the limits, rather than banging one's head on the brick wall.

But within the limits of each technology, one is not working with the same materials or the same results. The idea of working within limits is to become creative with what is available within those limits. To become attentive to how those materials work and exploit them.

Now this is not just about a certain look. It's about the reality of what one is working with - what it can do and what it can't. To not be deluded by the materials with which you work. To treat the materials and tools as a particular type of reality, rather than as some potential vehicle for some presupposed assumptions, that may or may not work with such. Or might partially work. The idea is to eventually obtain a work that could not have been made any other way. To arrive at a real work, rather than some example, or some demo, of some other imagined work created in greener pastures.

Now a story is not primary - despite this mantra being repeated ad nauseum throughout almost every film forum, ever held, since the invention of motion picture film (and it's descendants). It is simply an empty phrase without any meaning.

This is because a story is not independant of the means by which the story is told. It is interlocked with the technology. For example, Roger's homage to a TV show of the 60s tells a story, but the particular way in which that story is told is very much a part of that story. Would it be the same story if it were told in drawings, or in still photographs, or using computer animation?

Would a sequence of storyboard images for that work, tell the same story as the finished work?

Looked at this way a story is not so easily isolatable from the technical means by which a story is created. Its not necessary to begin with some "story" considered independantly of the means at one's disposal. Indeed, I'm not sure how that is even possible. A story can be (and should be, and can't otherwise be) considered in terms of the technical framework one has or will adopt. So if one has nominated to make a feature film on Super8, for example, (and why not) one can create a story that will work within that particular technical framework. And a different kind of story would occur if one nominated to make a comic book instead. Or another story again if writing a book.

Otherwise one can easily end up back where one started: entertaining stories that can't be done within the technical framework one has or will adopt. One can end up banging one's head on the brick wall again, probably because one is simply entertaining a story that belongs to some other technical means of production, where the grass is always greener.

Carl